I woke up this morning--I don't know why--with a burning question and I can't find the answer on Google.
Why is the price of salt inelastic?
We've been told all our lives, "The price of salt is inelastic." But if next time you went to the supermarket salt cost more than Beluga Caviar, you wouldn't buy it, would you?
I wouldn't. I'd start experimenting with low-sodium cooking that very day.
Maybe this whole thing about the price of salt being inelastic is actually bullshit?
Maybe all of modern economics is built on a house of sand?
Maybe it's all a heinous Deep State lie? Have we been brainwashed by the Salt Lobby?
Frankly, if the price of salt goes over four Euros, ****I'm not buying it. ***
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The point I'm making--although you can't be blamed for having missed it because I didn't realize it until five minutes ago--is compatible with both arguments. No, we can't be expected to engineer for *highly* unlikely events. But quite a few disasters are more like this one:
Someone failed to engineer for a not-so-unlikely event.
"Very cold weather" in Texas isn't a wild outlier event. It's snowed 94 times in Houston since 1881. This should have been someone's clue that maybe it could happen again.
We--people--tend to be extremely incompetent and accident-prone, and we're running a ton of highly-complex systems that are, basically, beyond our competence. These systems massively improve our quality of life and life expectancy, but when they go wrong ... *disaster.*
I can't make sense of the reporting on the blackout in Texas. What's the problem, exactly? Frozen wind turbines? Frozen equipment for burning natural gas? A frozen nuclear power plant? All of the above? Why would a cold snap take down any of these facilities?
Cold and snow are commonplace in northern latitudes, but the power doesn’t go out every time the temperature drops. I’ve read that “gas can’t make it through the pipes,” but why? Nearly half of Europe is heated by gas from Russia. The gas makes it through the pipes fine.
Were these facilities built to hugely different specifications in the belief that it would never get cold in Texas? Why would all three power sources—wind, natural gas, and nuclear—be unable to withstand cold weather? (If indeed all three are implicated?)
Has anyone come across an essay that explains to their satisfaction not *that* China is detaining its Uighurs population in camps--this is established--by *why?* What is the end goal and why does the CCP think it worth the international opprobrium?
Is it motivated by horror of any form of ethnic particularism that could lead to separatism and thus reduce China, again, to Warring States status? Is it motivated by a genuine belief that this is *good* for this population, which ultimately will be grateful?
Do they mean completely to destroy the Uighur population--physically and spiritually--to inspire terror in others? Or do they genuinely believe this will--ultimately--improve their moral and economic status?
The problem isn't confined to conservatives who don't understand what socialism is. As @SAFrancoC notes--here--claireberlinski.substack.com/p/the-moral-of…, many Americans are bandying about the term, and it isn't clear what they mean.
If this generation means "socialist" in the traditional sense of that word, we're in profound trouble if this ever translates into electoral success. I doubt this is what they mean, but it's hard to be sure, given their enthusiasm for the word "socialist."
It's not merely a conservative talking point: If they think socialism, as historically understood and practiced, is a good idea, people like @SAFrancoC need to explain why they're wrong.
Well, it can be expected. But so far, these expectations haven't been met. Perhaps they might be met if the US could manage a solid few years of political stability and economic dynamism.
Both American political parties are now committed to protectionism. No significant political constituency favors free trade. Protectionism is not a better idea because Biden endorses it. Le Monde rightly points this out-- lemonde.fr/idees/article/…
while overlooking the even greater cost to EU taxpayers of its own protectionism. (Although in fairness, they do link the document that spells it out plainly.)
My own views on protectionism have changed as a result of the pandemic; I now believe some industries need to be protected--medical supplies and pharmaceuticals, for example. We need to repatriate industries such that shortfalls can be used as a boot on our neck.